Yeah, that newer affirmative defense they allow is kinda funny. You are NOT ALLOWED to possss a handgun, unless when your possessing it you are using it for defense of home/person. (You don't really have a legal right to defend your home/possessions, just your home/self and persons.) I mean, but when you get caught, it's like what about all those months you were possessing it in violation of the statute!?!

It's one of those funny laws that makes sense in application. Keep a gun, just don't get caught, but if you do get caught, be defending yourself in your home.

The Constitution does not give you the right to bear arms. It gives you only the right not to be prohibited from bearing arms by the federal government.

1) The Constitution is incapable of giving rights. The Constitution recognizes pre-existing rights.

2) The Constitution both acknowledges that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that no government shall infringe upon that right.

Fred, with all due respect, would you consider it possible your ideological position on guns is the result of a kind of cultural "indoctrination"?

Actually, no. My beliefs are mostly derived from personal experience.

I know it's illegal to possess a handgun in the city of Chicago, as well as Madison. I wonder if a city could ban guns outright, ala Unforgiven?

Read Article VI of the Constitution: "This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

I could be wrong, but it sounds like that prohibits state and/or local laws from contradicting the Constitution and the rights it protects.

Um, the constitution does recognize preexisting rights, but it also confers rights. Due process for one, equal protection, etc. etc. Heck, that's why we have all those amendments and new ones can grant rights, like the 13th and 14th amendments, and whichever one granted women the right to vote, etc. etc.

Heck, that's why we have all those amendments and new ones can grant rights, like the 13th and 14th amendments, and whichever one granted women the right to vote, etc. etc.

That would be the 19th. But you're mistaken about something. The 13th amendment says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." That does not "give" anyone the right to be free from slavery. The people already had the right to liberty--the 13th amendment simply recognized that pre-existing right by forbidding the government from allowing any form of slavery or involuntary servitude to exist in this country (except as a form of criminal punishment). Next, the 14th amendment: "No state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That does not "give" anyone the right to due process of law, or equal protection of the laws. The people already had those rights--the 14th amendment only forbids the government from infringing upon them. Same with the 19th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." It is obvious just from the way that amendment was written that United States citizens already had the right to vote--this amendment only forbids the government from infringing upon that right. These are pre-existing rights, which we are automatically endowed with upon our creation.

Special_Fred, what on earth is a "preexisting right"?

OK...let me explain one of the many differences between privileges and rights. Rights are powers of free action; something that you have the sovereign authority to do because there is no higher authority to get permission from. Rights cannot be "granted" to you by any government. You are endowed with certain unalienable rights by your creator (i.e., whatever force of God or nature that created you). Rights are the exact opposite of privileges. A privilege is a temporary ability granted to you by someone of a higher authority. Carrying a gun for defense of life, liberty, and property is a right, not a privilege.

Carrying a gun for defense of life, liberty, and property is a right, not a privilege.

I'm no expert in international law but I'm pretty sure this inalienable 'right' does not appear in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

E_S you may have missed the last line in my last post where I said there is no evidence gun control laws in australia have had any positive or negitive effect.

However from that one almost has to conclude that if gun control has no effect positive or negative then it can not in any stretch of the imaginiation be considered as "working".

I think the main point and the reason why E_S raised crime stats in the first place was to debunk the myth that pro gun lobbiests in the USA have been peddling is that the crime rate in Australia since the introduction of gun control laws has been soaring.

I'm no expert in international law but I'm pretty sure this inalienable 'right' does not appear in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

This is the same declaration that says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression..." in Article 19, and, "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association..." in Article 20, and then contradicts the very definition of liberty by saying, "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." in Article 29. This is the same declaration that falsely claims that people have a right to taxpayer-funded education and housing. IMHO, what this fatally flawed 'declaration' says (or doesn't say) is irrelevant.

So Fred, the concept of the "social contract" in political science; what's that to you?

It depends. Surely you know that I consider the US Constitution to be the ultimate social contract, and that I have the utmost respect for it, so you'll have to be more specific.

You know Fred, you would laugh less if you were to consider a) what the aims and purpose of the UN are (see also: Preamble) and why that clause about the rights not contradicting it were inserted. It's another example sadly whereby you refuse to apply context in order to boost your argument, but then someone comes along and shows you the error(s) made.

Special Fred, the distinction between rights and privileges has been abolished and the united states jurisprudence, it is an obsolete legal concept.

Second of all, the right to vote did not exist for women prior to the 19th amendment. The right to vote only exists because the constitution says so. The inalianebale rights are there, but not all the rights recognized/granted by the constitution would be inalienable without the constitution. The right to be free from slavery did not exist for blacks before the 13th amendment, as the constitution explicitly condoned slavery.

Before Miranda, there was no right to a specific warning regarding your rights.

Before the fifth amendment, there was no right to not incriminate yourself (unless it existed at common-law, but even then, you get my point.)

But this is a philisophical discussion, however, the reality is, the rights are granted because the constitution says so.

You know Fred, you would laugh less if you were to consider a) what the aims and purpose of the UN are...

Good intentions =/= good results. "Free" education and housing, and the ability to exercise "rights" (which are not actually "rights" at all, but privileges), may sound great in theory, but in practice, these things only restrict liberty and force obedience to a growing authoritarian regime.

...and why that clause about the rights not contradicting it were inserted.

Well, since you are as close to an expert as I'm likely to find (and no, that isn't sarcasm), perhaps you would care to explain why the UN is so afraid of peaceful opposition?

Obi-Wan McCartney:

All people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. These rights cannot be given, nor can they be taken away, by a piece of paper. Of course, they can be infringed upon, based on what the corrupt have made the Constitution say; I'm not so foolish as to disagree with that. But rights are beyond human authority to "give." Our rights exist whether the laws acknowledge them or not. I also agree with you that this is a philosophical discussion, so it would be better if you could PM me with any further comments or questions, so this thread is not derailed any further.

E_S (cont'd.):

Not totally, no. I'm sorry that you feel the world is wrong and libertarianism right, but nobody is born totally free and limits aren't necessarily bad per se.

If those "limits" go beyond restricting actions that physically harm others (or threaten physical harm to others), then yes, they are an abomination, and for the sake of liberty, they must be done away with.

EDIT:

The needed limits are there already.

Indeed they are. Every right comes with an inherent responsibility--namely, the "unspoken promise" that you will not abuse that right in such a way that others are put in danger. No additional limits are required or desired. Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.

All people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

My parents created me (at least I think they did) so they must have been a bit short on inalienable rights that day because none were endowed upon me. I'll get in touch with my brother and see whether he got any.

If those "limits" go beyond restricting actions that physically harm others (or threaten physical harm to others), then yes, they are an abomination, and for the sake of liberty, they must be done away with

Is that not the point of laws aimed at controlling the ownership of automatic weapons by civilians? - to restrict actions that physically harm others (or threaten physical harm to others). Firing a weapon is action- you need to hold the weapon, aim and pull the trigger.

Every right comes with an inherent responsibility--namely, the "unspoken promise" that you will not abuse that right in such a way that others are put in danger.

So if someone gets pissed at the world and shoots 25 people then they should be sued for breach of 'unspoken' contract? The criminal law is superfluous?

My parents created me (at least I think they did) so they must have been a bit short on inalienable rights that day because none were endowed upon me. I'll get in touch with my brother and see whether he got any.

You have no inalienable rights? If someone killed you, they wouldn't be infringing upon your right to live, because you don't have one? Sorry, but your sarcasm doesn't do a very good job of illustrating whatever point you're trying to make.

Is that not the point of laws aimed at controlling the ownership of automatic weapons by civilians?

Gun ownership, by itself, does not endanger anyone. A person's self-defense tools are nobody else's business unless they are being misused--in other words, they must present a "clear and present danger." That is not the case if the guns are in a safe or in a holster.

Firing a weapon is action- you need to hold the weapon, aim and pull the trigger.

But firing a weapon is not a crime. Firing a weapon at an innocent person is a crime.

So if someone gets pissed at the world and shoots 25 people then they should be sued for breach of contract? The criminal law is superfluous?

Not at all. If someone murders 25 people, they are guilty of far more than breach of contract. Laws against the taking of innocent life are not superfluous by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes I have certain inalienable rights - they are articulated in the Universal Declration of Human Rights and the ICCPR. They were not endowed by my 'Creator" (what does this even mean? - Christians and Muslims would say God is their creator) - that was my point.

If someone murders 25 people, they are guilty of far more than breach of contract. Laws against the taking of innocent life are not superfluous by any stretch of the imagination.

If that is the case then explain your comment that apart from the inherent "unspoken promise" attached to every 'right' - "No additional limits are required or desired." Would the criminal law not be such an additional limit on your liberty?

I'm just not following your train of logic. You say the Constitution merely reflects the inherent and inalienable right to carry a gun for defense of life, liberty, and property endowed upon all human beings by their Creator. But every right must have some source of authority - you have to be able to point to some law or custom or common usage, whether legal or moral. I'm just not sure exactly where your source of inalienable rights is derived.

Yes I have certain inalienable rights - they are articulated in the Universal Declration of Human Rights and the ICCPR.

OK, answer me this: Did those rights exist before those documents were written? Why or why not?

They were not endowed by my 'Creator" (what does this even mean? - Christians and Muslims would say God is their creator) - that was my point.

The term "Creator" was an intentionally vague term used in the Declaration of Independence. Essentially, whatever deity or force of nature created humankind also endowed us with rights. These rights are recognized and protected by documents like the Constitution--but no human has the power to give rights or take them away. They exist no matter what any law says.

If that is the case then explain your comment that apart from the inherent "unspoken promise" attached to every 'right' - "No additional limits are required or desired."

I meant that the only type of legal restrictions upon our rights that I consider to be fair and legitimate are those that prohibit one person from infringing upon the rights of another. Any additional restrictions are unnecessary and should be done away with.

Would the criminal law not be such an additional limit on your liberty?

No, because I do not have the right to murder. I do not have the right to assault. I do, however, have the right to self-defense, and if that is true, then I am certainly entitled to enhance my ability to fend off would-be attackers with a sidearm. As long as I conduct myself honorably, then my possession and maintenance of my weapon(s) is my own concern, not the government's.

I'm just not sure exactly where your source of inalienable rights is derived.

Well, if you're a religious person, you might say God. If you're not, you might say Nature. Either way, rights, by definition, cannot be "given" to one person by another, nor can they be infringed upon (except as punishment for a crime). We have the sovereign authority to exercise all of our rights (provided that we do not abuse them) whether the government likes it or not, because the "source" of our rights is above the government.

Your definition of "rights" is necessarily an abstract definition. Rights and obligations may be conferred by any manner of written instrument whether that be legislation, deed or contract or by oral agreement.

If that is not the case, then I have been wasting my profesional life drafting instruments that have no effect. As I have litigated some of those same instruments, I can assure you they have effect. So, rights may be conferred by one person to another. If you have a credit card, mortgage or loan, or if you bought a car or a house or entered into a lease or hired a DVD or rented some equipment etc etc ad nauseum ad nauseum you have entered into agreements that confer rights and obligations on the parties that are enforceable. To say otherwise is silly.

As to your question: "Did those rights exist before those documents were written? Why or why not?"

I think we are getting philosophical here and are in danger of derailing the thread but I will answer anyway - I guess the answer is those 'rights' existed only as 'ideals' and had no force or authority before those documents were written. Can those rights have the force of law? Again, I am no expert in international law, but in Australia our constitution grants the Federal government with an external affairs power that allows international treaties and protocols to form the basis of commonwelath legislation if those treaties and protocols have been ratified by Australia or Australia are a party. In fact, many of our laws have been intepreted with regard to the specific terms of the ICCPR which formed the basis of the legislation.

Could that have happened if those documents were never written? The answer is 'no' because there is no authority or rule for our country to ratify- no articulated 'source' of rights that could form the basis of a treaty or protocol. So on that basis, those rights articulated in the UDHR and the ICCPR did not exist until those documents were created.

For that reason, I believe your contentionm that your 'right' to carry a gun for defense of life, liberty, and property is an inherent unwritten right endowed by God or by Nature is nonsense. It is a right conferred by virtue of your Constitution and I guess could be taken away if your Constituion was amended (I assume that is the case- I've never heard of a constituion that cannot be amended).

Heck, Special Fred, even on a philisophical level, I could agree that certain rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are inalienable.

But other rights, not so much. We had no rights to vote for Senators before that certain amendment, but now we have such a right. We have no right to vote for President at a national level, we only have that right because the state allows us to vote for which electors are slated to vote on behalf of the state for President. Miranda, several rights the Supreme Court deemed necessary to ensure that 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment were complied with, heck, the 14th amendment applies all these rights to the states, the list goes on and on.

I just don't see how you believe God gave every man the inalienable right to vote for their Senator, and if so, shouldn't we abolish the electoral system because we don't have a right to actually vote for President of the Federal Government?

Good intentions =/= good results. "Free" education and housing, and the ability to exercise "rights" (which are not actually "rights" at all, but privileges), may sound great in theory, but in practice, these things only restrict liberty and force obedience to a growing authoritarian regime.

...and why that clause about the rights not contradicting it were inserted.

Well, since you are as close to an expert as I'm likely to find (and no, that isn't sarcasm), perhaps you would care to explain why the UN is so afraid of peaceful opposition?

Firstly Fred, the UN's purposes which are spelled out in the [link=http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/preamble.htm]Premable[/link], are geared towards the prevention of another world war. Free education and whatnot I don't know where you got that from...

As for the "obedience to a growing authoritarian machine", I find that sentiment somewhat paranoid and conspiracy theorist.

As for their opposition to peaceful opposition...

We've had this talk before.

The UN position on arms was clearly about restricting illegal arms sales to outwardly abusive states. The only people so narcissitic to make it about them are the ultra-nationalist pro-gun crowd in the US. And I suspect since gun manufacturers in the US miss out in part in those sales, they happily will provide funding to groups like KABA and other people with an equally unhealthy obsession in th ehumble firearm, allowing their propaganda machine to work overtime.

Not only is it legally impossible for the UN to contradict America statutes under common law, it's not their intention and as bizzare as it sounds, there's more to the world that the <5% America constitutes! So you need to accept that the propaganda outlets you've spent so much time around really are lying about the UN's position on guns to make themselves look better in their quest for a bizzare, Darwinian new world order.

I will attempt to explain my view of the distinction between rights and priveleges.

Privileges, as Fred noted earlier, are given by beings with higher authority.

Rights, on the other hand, are already had by all people, regardless of the existence of government; the government's role is to protect rights from those who wish to infringe upon them. For instance, the rights listed in the First Amendment are not given to people--they are explicitly protected.

A "right" is something that cannot be based the the existence of other people, for every individual possesses it regardless of whether or not there are others present. One can always speak, practice religion, posses property, craft weapons, defend one's self, etc., without other people being around.

/>

No, the right to vote did exist, but was suppressed by the very government that was sworn to protect human rights:

[Amendment Nineteen] The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

/>

No, the right to vote will only be protected if the Constitution says so.

/>

As we ponder the depths to which the Constitution errs, let us remind ourselves of the fact that, after having found so many errors in the Constituion, we must conclude that it is a fallible document. Therefore, how can we expect that this document, created by mere mortals, "grant" or "recognize" all rights, which are automatically granted to us by nature?

This is why the Constitution is not only flexible, but only authorized to protect rights. It is not the final authority on what rights actually exist--it is the authority on what rights shall be protected.

/>

Before the Fifth Amendment, there was no protection of the right to not incriminate yourself.

/>

Rights are protected because the Constitution says so. />/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>